Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:50:47 08/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2004 at 21:22:30, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On August 22, 2004 at 18:24:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 22, 2004 at 17:20:08, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>On August 22, 2004 at 11:18:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On August 22, 2004 at 03:11:59, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 21, 2004 at 17:48:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>That is _all_ I have said. I don't know what my working set is. I don't care >>>>>>what it is. I do know that for two different testers, bigger cache was faster, >>>>>>for Tom it wasn't. Why that is I have no idea, I really don't care, and I don't >>>>>>see any point in investigating further. >>>>> >>>>>I didn't test 256k to 512k at all, remember? That was from a hardware review >>>>>site that I have nothing to do with. >>>>> >>>>>I did run the 512k to 1024k experiment and my dual proc experiment, both of >>>>>which confirm the conclusion that I drew from Anandtech's data. >>>>> >>>>>-Tom >>>> >>>> >>>>OK. My error. However, Anandtech doesn't have a stellar reputation of late >>>>with regards to such tests. See their gaffe with TSCP. >>> >>>In the TSCP case, they were compiling TSCP themselves and not running the same >>>binary on both systems. Since the Sempron is all but identical to the Athlon 64, >>>I have no reason to believe that they mis-built Crafty for each system in such a >>>way that the speed was identical. >>> >>>>I have personally run 512K 1024K and 2048K. And I saw results from 1.5MB and >>>>3.0MB when Eugene ran his tests. All the AMDs I have access to are opterons >>>>with 1024K of L2: >>> >>>Your data is crap. It's old and it's not reproducable. Even if I cared about old >>>versions of Crafty and had a bunch of Xeons, you won't tell us what version you >>>were using. (Or even give us a range of versions you might have been using.) >> >> >>Exactly how would I know? But "my data is crap"? From someone that says the >>executable needs 5mb of ram when default has 4mb for hash before you even get >>started with other stuff? > >Hey, it's your program, not mine. You explain why I see "5,192 K" on my computer >screen right now. > See the other thread. When you compile with no threads, and no endgame tables, it does shrink it down although I get 5.75 megs here. Perhaps a shared lib difference somewhere. >Besides, questioning my credibility doesn't improve your own credibility. I believe you started the credibility stuff. Again my original statement was "just because you run with X L2 cache and 2X L2 cache, and see _no_ speed change, does _not_ prove that the working set is <= X." That statement still stands. I've said more than once that it is possible that the WS is < 256K for all I know. It is possible it is < 128K. It is probable that it is > 512K. But your test did not prove _anything_. I've said that several times. Nothing has changed to make my statement wrong. Nothing will because you simply didn't prove _anything_. Key word == "PROVE". Note that I would be quite happy if I could run in 128K of cache. That will fit L1 of newer processors and would run like the blazes. > >>> I'm >>>inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt because Eugene also saw an >>>increase, but I don't see how it matters anyway because now we have recent data >>>from two new independent sources (namely Anandtech and myself). >> >>Exactly what did anandtech use? Note that Eugene's data wasn't 4 years old. > >Here's an entire web page about exactly what they used: > >http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2170 > >-Tom
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.